-
GJF Baron Nobilis Services Co. Ltd t/a Noble Titles
A webpage for a title purchasing website misleadingly implied that the public could purchase a legal or officially recognised title through their service.
-
Mamedica Ltd
A website for a medical cannabis clinic made misleading price comparison claims, failed to make the basis of comparisons with competitors clear and didn’t ensure that people would be able to verify comparative claims.
-
TUI UK Ltd
A holiday listing featured on the TUI website misleadingly advertised prices that weren’t available to the public.
-
easyJet Airline Co Ltd
A webpage for easyJet used “from” price claims which misleadingly implied that large cabin bags were available at the advertised price across a significant proportion of their flights.
-
Abellio ScotRail Ltd t/a ScotRail
A website for ScotRail misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
GA Trains Limited t/a Greater Anglia
A website page for Greater Anglia misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
My Train Ticket Limited t/a mytrainticket.co.uk
A website page for MyTrainTicket misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
OTTY Sleep Ltd
A website page for a mattress company made misleading savings claims.
-
Domestika Inc
A paid-for Facebook post for an online course provider misleadingly gave the impression that an offer was a one-off purchase when it was only available when signing up to a free trial of a subscription.
-
Storage Giant Ltd
Two web pages and an email for a self-storage company made best price guaranteed claims without evidence to support them. They also failed to make sure that quoted prices reflected the total cost people would pay and didn’t make clear when prices were promotional or subject to significant...
-
Select Specs Ltd
A TV and YouTube ad for a glasses retailer made misleading and unverifiable price comparisons with competitor products. The ads also made misleading pricing claims, including by failing to make minimum order requirements and non-optional delivery charges sufficiently clear.
-
Charlie Johnson
Two paid-for social media ads by Charlie Johnson, a business coach in the fitness industry, misleadingly implied that claimed lifestyle and earning results were typical and that a promotion was time limited when this wasn’t the case.
-
Grant Cardone Training Technologies Inc t/a Grant Cardone
A paid-for Facebook ad for an online business event by businessman Grant Cardone misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.
-
Jessica Crane Ltd
A paid-for Facebook and Instagram ad for a wealth and business coach company, run by Jessica Crane, misleadingly implied that lifestyle and earnings results were typical, misled in relation to the content of training material available for free and made unsubstantiated claims about the number of top salon owners using ...
-
Robbins Research International Inc t/a Tony Robbins
A paid-for Facebook post by Tony Robbins advertising a business coaching course misleadingly implied that claimed earnings results were typical.
-
Self Made Girl Boss Ltd
A paid-for Instagram post for a business coaching company, misleadingly implied that stated lifestyle and earning results were typical, included qualifications that contradicted the claims that they qualified, and failed to make the distinction between free and priced items clear.
-
Community Fibre Ltd
Two pages on the Community Fibre website misleadingly implied that they were the number one rated for internet provider and that they had the most 5 star reviews on third party website.
-
Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress
An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.
-
Lloyds Bank plc t/a Lloyds Banking Group (LBG)
A national press ad for Lloyds Bank misleadingly implied that they had made donations to social housing projects and omitted significant information that put these claims into context.
-
Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon.co.uk
A webpage on Amazon.co.uk showed unclear options to purchase Amazon Prime and was misleading for consumers.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal investigation, the advertising rules apply and where we draw the line in judging whether an ad has broken the rules. We also publish a list of companies and organisations which agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.
Rulings (26)